The right to bear arms.

[Freddy4190]

I'm not really sure what i'm trying to get at with this thread. Let's wing it a bit. There's a huge dispute over this amendment. A lot of people think if you own a gun, you mean harm with it. I'm a gun owner. I own a Mossberg 500A 12 Gauge Pump. I like guns, I of course don't mean harm. It is also for protection purposes, living in a bad neighborhood and such. I own a lot of knives. Machetes, swords. I believe in the right to bear arms, I carry a knife with me everywhere I go, 2 more recently. I don't mean harm with them, i'm not going to commit a crime or nothing like that. They come in handy at my job, plus a added bonus is protection. People see my knife clipped to my jeans and they assume the worst. Human nature I guess. Your opinions on all of it? Do you believe in the right to bear arms? If so, are you a gun owner? Like I said, I wasn't sure what i'm trying to get it.. excuse me if it's a bit of a clusterfuck.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I believe in the right to bear arms because people who do not feel safe should be able to defend themselves if someone were to attack them with bad intentions. I don't own any guns. The closest thing I have to weaponry is a prop sword that a friend got for me at a convention and it's made out of wood so it's hardly dangerous. However, even though I don't own any guns/weapons I believe that it's ok for someone to own some.... but only if it's for defending themselves. Not everyone who gets a gun buys it with bad intentions. Most people just want to feel safer and having access to a gun or knife can help people feel safe since they will have a way to defend themselves in case they end up in a situation where they would need to be able to.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

The Founding Fathers wrote the second amendment at a time when the country was new and young. However the same rules apply in this day and age. I personally believe we should be able to bear arms. We still need laws to protect ourselves though like those of us who are convicted felons should not be able to purchase a gun. The Assault Weapons ban of course is a good idea. We do not want war in our streets. Speaking of the second amendment, why are we banned from carrying a Swiss army knife? Most of us use it for Boy Scout stuff (I am not counting the criminal element).

 

[Mufasa]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

I do not think it was the intent of our founding fathers to arm every yahoo available with a gun just for the hell of it. The 2nd Amendment had a specific purpose. Our founding fathers were actually scared of democracy and mob rule so I think they would have been uneasy about giving everyone weapons. It was more of a lesser of two evils thing. Our founding fathers were also equally worried about standing armies because charismatic military leaders can take over the army and then lead a coup d'état on the government, and from there establish tyrannical rule. Also the new nation could not really afford a standing army. In those days militarily technology was somewhat limited, so a common hunting rifle was capable of finding use on the battlefield.

So because it was cheaper, because they were scared of standing armies, because lots of folks already had more or less military grade weapons for the time, and because the weak 18th century government lacked ability to strip people of their weapons anyways, they choose to write the 2nd Amendment. It's original purposes were for national defense, not home defense. That's why it specifically says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" in the 2nd amendment. Our national defense was supposed to be militia based rather than one built around standing armies, but that went by the wayside when military technology changed.

But then military technology made militia defense obsolete, and in doing so made the 2nd amendment obsolete for it's original purposes. Instead pro gun people have created new purposes for the 2nd amendment that are contrary to what the founding fathers really intended, while still simultaneously claiming to be championing our founding fathers' vision.

For the record, I own several guns by the way. I am though not just going to pretend that the 2nd amendment's main purposes were something other than what they really were. I don't think it's your constitutional right to own one if you are not a member of a militia, and chances are you aren't. Convicted felons are bared from owning guns, and I feel safer for it.

 

[lghikas]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

This is only one version of the way the beginning of the Amendment is written. The other just has small capitalization and punctuational differences mainly being "People", "arms" and "militia". This copy was what was distributed to the States and ratified by them.

Now if you look under Article 4...I think of the Constitution you'll see something like this:

[...] and [The United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Which is where the beginning of State Militia or the National Guard in the United States under the Constitution. So my reasoning for believing that Amendment #2 is for the People of the United State to have to right to carry guns. Now with that being said I do think they need to make it a bit harder for some people to carry guns, and which guns they can carry.

As for me owning a gun, I don't own one but I eventually will probably own just a pistol or something small and just keep it safe from kids and people not fit to hold a gun.

 

[Mufasa]

The two versions differ in capitalization and punctuation but not meaning.

[...] and [The United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This is again, a national security issue rather than about protecting private homes from would be robbers.

By the wording of the constitution, the reason for allowing guns is because there isn't a national army to defend against invasion or internal rebellion.

 

[lghikas]

The two versions differ in capitalization and punctuation but not meaning.



This is again, a national security issue rather than about protecting private homes from would be robbers.

By the wording of the constitution, the reason for allowing guns is because there isn't a national army to defend against invasion or internal rebellion.

The quote is from Article 4 not Amendment #2. Article 4 means in terms of a Militia or Nation Guard type Army, so why would they state that again, if Amendment #2 was pretty much saying the same thing. It's because they aren't the same thing. When looking at things in the past you have to look at the Historical context of it. Back than it wasn't such a big deal if everyone on the block had a few guns each. Article 4 is about national security and Amendment #2 is talking about the people's rights.

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because the people and the states wanted guaranteed rights, that would be taken away. The individual rights make up most of the Bill of Rights except #10.

So I ask two questions. 1) Why would they right the same thing twice through the Constitution? and 2) If Amendment #2 is indeed a State Right why was it written at the beginning of the Bill of Rights where the Amendments were Individual rights and not later on where the 10th Amendment is referring to State rights?

A difference in punctuation and capitalization might seem something small and insignificant but why would they change it? There has to be a reason. I personally think it is because they wanted to put more emphasis on the People and less on an actual militia which was already...well would be formed in a later part of the Constitution.

I'll just throw this last question out for discussion sake. Is there a chance that Amendment #2 means both for A State to organize a Militia/National Guard and for people to have to rights to own guns? I say this because of the language it uses. As I read the beginning of the Amendment I happen to think or get the idea of maybe they are listing the rights, kind of like the first Amendment is just Freedom of Speech but others such as Press and Religion. The first right would be the right of the State to organize a Militia/Nation Guard and the second would be for the people to bear arms.

 

[twentytwo]

If a situation ever happens in their town like it did in New Orleans after Katrina where police can't be everywhere at once - and thugs and gangs are beating, raping and robbing possibly them and the people they love - all those *****es who don't want us to own guns will be praying to God they had one at that very moment.

 

[Mufasa]

The quote is from Article 4 not Amendment #2. Article 4 means in terms of a Militia or Nation Guard type Army, so why would they state that again, if Amendment #2 was pretty much saying the same thing. It's because they aren't the same thing. When looking at things in the past you have to look at the Historical context of it. Back than it wasn't such a big deal if everyone on the block had a few guns each. Article 4 is about national security and Amendment #2 is talking about the people's rights.

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because the people and the states wanted guaranteed rights, that would be taken away. The individual rights make up most of the Bill of Rights except #10.

So I ask two questions. 1) Why would they right the same thing twice through the Constitution? and 2) If Amendment #2 is indeed a State Right why was it written at the beginning of the Bill of Rights where the Amendments were Individual rights and not later on where the 10th Amendment is referring to State rights?

A difference in punctuation and capitalization might seem something small and insignificant but why would they change it? There has to be a reason. I personally think it is because they wanted to put more emphasis on the People and less on an actual militia which was already...well would be formed in a later part of the Constitution.

I'll just throw this last question out for discussion sake. Is there a chance that Amendment #2 means both for A State to organize a Militia/National Guard and for people to have to rights to own guns? I say this because of the language it uses. As I read the beginning of the Amendment I happen to think or get the idea of maybe they are listing the rights, kind of like the first Amendment is just Freedom of Speech but others such as Press and Religion. The first right would be the right of the State to organize a Militia/Nation Guard and the second would be for the people to bear arms.

If I remember correctly, Madison didn't really believe a Bill of Rights was even necessary. The Bill of Rights was added just to calm people who were alarmed at creating a new government with more central power.

Article 4 mentions the United States commitment to protecting states. It does not describe specifically how it will do so.

Like I said earlier, The Bill of Rights was introduced to calm people down. Standing National Army's were scary to many of the political leaders of the day. Most them preferred militia over permanent armies. The 2nd Amendment guarantee's the availability of a militia. No federal law can be passed to disarm the militia. This provides a check on standing federal armies and a check on central power. Like the 10th amendment is designed to empower the states, the 2nd amendment is designed to empower the militia and the states. With the second amendment there is a local means of defense which can't be taken away by federal law.

If the second amendment was designed for individual persons to protect their homes it wouldn't have bothered to mention anything about militia's it would have instead said in order to protect an individual's homes from thieves.

 

[FromTheSouth]

First of all, I believe that if the second amendment is taken away, the first goes next. Secondly, it says that a well regulated militia is essential to a free state. That implies that people must be able to have guns to protect themselves from anyone infringing upon their basic freedoms. The anyone in question could just as well be our own government. We must be allowed to keep guns in order to protect our freedoms, no matter who it is trying to take them away.

 

[Mufasa]

I'm not anti-gun, but I don't think our guns will save our freedoms. If our government ever became really oppressive in this day in age we would loose. Having the world's most powerful standing army kind of negates anything local folks can put up. The rebellion would be quashed quickly. They have assault rifles, tanks, body armor, and air support. we have mostly hunting rifles and pistols.

Handguns serve to protect the home from thieves and local trespassers, but they won't win revolutions in the 21st century.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I'm not anti-gun, but I don't think our guns will save our freedoms. If our government ever became really oppressive in this day in age we would loose. Having the world's most powerful standing army kind of negates anything local folks can put up. The rebellion would be quashed quickly. They have assault rifles, tanks, body armor, and air support. we have mostly hunting rifles and pistols.

Handguns serve to protect the home from thieves and local trespassers, but they won't win revolutions in the 21st century.

If anything has been evidenced by the middle east, it's that in close combat, the US Army can be slowed down. Hunting rifles are high enough power to kill in one shot. From close range, the average pistol can deliver a death shot.

If they want to roll tanks down the street, they would have to understand that there would be 300,000,000 people with half billion guns and trillions of rounds firing at them.

But, yeah, mostly for home protection, which is still important.

 

[secret titan]

I'm pro-gun and believe everyone should have the means to protect themselves as long as they do it the legal way. One of the reasons guns are so taboo to people is due to criminals and thieves that use them in an illegal manner. They have no respect for the law, so why would they get rid of their guns if they are no longer allowed? The only people it hurts is the legal gun carrier.

However, if guns are outlawed here in the states, I am going to have to learn to use a good old bow and arrow. Silent.. but deadly!

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I used to want a gun, but there are now so many non-lethal means available that I don't see the point in having one. I'm totally fine with my taser. I might get a gun in the future, but I'd only buy rubber bullets for it.

If people want the right to bear arms, though, I have no problem with it; I don't plan on burglarizing anyone's home, so, I don't have to worry about getting shot.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Everyone should have the right to hang bear arms on their wall... Seriously though I don't have a problem with people owning arms in their home. I just don't think its wise to have them in public at places like bars, churches, rallies, town hall meetings, or even at the capitol building. Protesters with guns are trouble waiting to happen. It shouldn't be taken out of the constitution or anything, but I don't think people should bring guns or any weapons to the capitol building or even bars or churches.

 

[Razor]

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[4] One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:[5]

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:[6]

“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

Our rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, for the presence of a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free State.

Hey, guess what. We have a well-regulated militia. It's called the Arkansas State Guard. It's called the (Insert State Here) State Guard.

That, honestly, is all that is needed as far as the Constitution goes. We have a well-regulated militia. How is Johnny Do-Well having a Automatic Elephant Rifle going to help with that well-regulated militia?

I say that, but I understand people wanting to own a gun for their own protection. Alright, handguns and rifles are still available.

However, why do you need an automatic rifle? An AK-47? A bazooka? There is no honest need for those.

The right to bear arms, when applied to the individual, should only go as far as protection of self and family. In the Lockean system, which we all agree to in the United States, we entrust the protection of the State and the Union to the Government. Therefore, I'm all for regulating gun ownership to keep people from owning the crazy automatic rifles and other weapons that do not in any way owe to reasonable self-protection.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Absolutely not. I would HATE to live in a state where the people around me not only carried knives and guns, but did so legally. In England, youths in certain parts of the country think it's 'cool' to carry knives. They end up dead. I don't feel safe at night or being out on my own as it is. I know I'd never carry a knife, so how would knowing everyone else did help? I feel slightly better knowing the police have the right to stop and search people, and prosecute those found with a weapon. Doesn't America have one of the worst violent crime records in the West? And you wonder why...

 

[Shocky]

Absolutely not. I would HATE to live in a state where the people around me not only carried knives and guns, but did so legally. In England, youths in certain parts of the country think it's 'cool' to carry knives. They end up dead. I don't feel safe at night or being out on my own as it is. I know I'd never carry a knife, so how would knowing everyone else did help? I feel slightly better knowing the police have the right to stop and search people, and prosecute those found with a weapon. Doesn't America have one of the worst violent crime records in the West? And you wonder why...

* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4

* In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.

* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years.

The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States

Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics.

Fact: The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe.

Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people. That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the U.S.

How I walk outside here stateside without full body armor is beyond me...

Anyways, in my experience, the people usually crying about the 2nd Amendment are usually the first ones to hide behind the 1st Amendment when the going gets tough.

Do I own a gun, no. Would I own a gun, yes. Have I shot a gun, hell yes. Is it fun, all sorts of fun. Have I shot an animal with a gun, hell yes, I love deer meat and it saves me a few hundred dollars on meat for the rest of the year.

Let people live their lives how they want to, the last thing the world needs is more government telling Joe Citizen how to live his life. I have co-workers that own some sort of 50mm Sniper rifle, and they should Watermelons with it, why, because it's fun.

I'm pretty sure that if you dig deeper into all of the violent crime rates, you find that most of the gun related crimes are caused by those that don't have gun permits. Don't label the gun owner in the same group as the asshole gangbanger that buys an AK from some drug Czar.

The old saying goes, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

[HBK-aholic]

How I walk outside here stateside without full body armor is beyond me...

Anyways, in my experience, the people usually crying about the 2nd Amendment are usually the first ones to hide behind the 1st Amendment when the going gets tough.

Do I own a gun, no. Would I own a gun, yes. Have I shot a gun, hell yes. Is it fun, all sorts of fun. Have I shot an animal with a gun, hell yes, I love deer meat and it saves me a few hundred dollars on meat for the rest of the year.

Let people live their lives how they want to, the last thing the world needs is more government telling Joe Citizen how to live his life. I have co-workers that own some sort of 50mm Sniper rifle, and they should Watermelons with it, why, because it's fun.

I'm pretty sure that if you dig deeper into all of the violent crime rates, you find that most of the gun related crimes are caused by those that don't have gun permits. Don't label the gun owner in the same group as the asshole gangbanger that buys an AK from some drug Czar.

The old saying goes, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I'm not arguing America/UK Shocky, I'm arguing America/many Western countries. The UKs crime is horrible, which is why I said America has ONE of the highest crime rates - which is true. But when you look at other strong, capitalist societies, that don't allow people to carry weapons freely, they don't have overly high rates. I think it's backwards to add MORE weapons to the streets when you want to stop crime with weapons.

 

[Shocky]

I knows, that's why I posted the European info in there. Just busting chops because I don't think I've given you any grief in forever. The main point I'm getting across is that the misconception that Americans are running around shooting each other because we can, it's simply not the truth.

Most of the gun crimes in America are caused by those that aren't properly licensed and have no business owning a gun. I'm not some Gun Hippie that thinks everyone should have an automatic weapon with a grenade launcher attached at the side. Strict rules should be in place to use these firearms, which for the most part, there are. I'm pretty sure no felons are allowed to own a firearm, and so on and so forth.

Hell, I live in Cincinnati, and we've seen crime soar over the last decade. This was caused by the Race riots in 2001 when the inner city thugs made sure to break into every gun shop in the city and rob them blind. Now we have a city filled with stupid fucks and guns. This isn't the fault of the typical gun owner. When you break down the murder rate in Cincinnati, 93% is caused by the drug trade. So pretty much, if you keep your mind on your business, you're going to be safe, just don't get stuck with the wrong crowd.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

When I turn 18, I'm going to buy a gun. Since I was 12, I've lived with my mom, little brother, and more recently, my grandma. I'm not the biggest guy and I know that if something were to go down, there's no way I'd be able to defend my family against a man. I don't live in a bad city or neighborhood, but there's always the chance. And when I go off to college, I want my mom to have something in the home that she can protect herself and Carson with. My desire to buy a gun is simply precautionary.

"Bad guys" are going to have guns, whether it's legal for purchase or not. I should (and do) have the right to protect myself.

Now, I don't see the need for assault rifles inside the home, so I can sort-of agree with a restriction. I don't see why Tom or Bill needs a .50 cal in the home for "defense", or why Mohammad needs an AK-47 in his car. But we should have the right for concealed carry of handguns and guns for home defense.

On a different topic, it comforts me knowing that every citizen in this great country can own a rifle. It discourages Johnny and Ralph from stirring shit up, and Vladamir isn't going to bring drive his tanks down my streets when he knows that and door he busts down could have a very angry redneck with a shotgun behind it.

 

[Whistler 619]

No offense to American's but you guys have taken the right to bear arms a little to fucking far. I mean, in Canada, on my street, which is considered the "Ghetto" of my town in Montreal, you'd be surprised at how few people actually lock there doors at night. Not only that but you'd also be surprised at how few people actually own Guns.

I think though, that with the American way of life, and how afraid the Media makes you guys, were the TV Channels and News Stations love to show whats wrong and not whats right, having guns has just become something that is to easy to acquire.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to own a gun, I'm just saying that you guys have taken it way to far.

 

[The Gribbler]

Was it Family Guy that offered the alternative meaning for the right to bare arms?

"So were all cool with the second amendment, everyone has the right to bear arms?"

"Yeah, I guess, but won't people get confused?"

"What do you mean, everyone has the right to have a pair of bear arms in their house" *points to the arms of an actual bear* "How could that possibly misinterpreted?"

I dont know about the second amendment, to an Australian that sounds crazy for everyone to have a gun but our nations are vastly different in that sense, so I can't really comment on the dynamic, does anyone wanna explain to me WHY you all need guns again?

No disrespect I legitimatley do not understand.

Just My Opinion

 

[Gerald Brisco]

The neighbourhoods wouldnt be as bad if you had wankers walking around with guns? Give everyone a flamethrower and a missile launcher, or take everything away it would still be a shitty neighbourhood, having everyone armed up doesnt really effect anything

My Idea about all of this (im Australian so im probably missing the whole patriotic and emotional issue of the argument)

I lived on a Station for about a year, at 19 i was legally allowed to own a gun, I used it to shoot pests (IE, Pigs/Kangaroos)

I cannot fathom what anyone would use any type of Automatic type gun or a powerful handgun over say the general 9mm handgun, Unless you are attempting to unload onto a charging Elephant.

It's also very hard to Obtain guns in australia

The state i live in basically you need to own a gun.

A good reason (cant just say Because i feel like it), you need to be a member of a gun club and a rec shooter. cant just go "FOR PROTECTION!"

Like i got mine, living in the bush where there is frequent pests.

Anyone who is suburban and not in a gun club needs written concent from large land owners saying they come over now and then for some rec shooting.

Illegal to keep loaded guns anywhere in your house

Illegal to keep your gun anywhere bar a locked gun safe

A huge restriction on what types of guns you may own (example, you couldnt get anything more powerful then a Remington Model 7600 in the state i live in, even if like me you were knocking off about 5-10 kangaroos a week)

Routine police checks of if your guns are stored in your gun safe (pretty much you lose your right to own a gun ever is lost if your a nutter and keeping a loaded one outside your gun safe)

Illegal for anyone under 18 to actually USE a handgun (legal for anyone over 12 to use firearms bar handgun)

Why is it nessisary for most people to own guns? I dont personally own one, i Dont think it would make me feel safer in my shitty suburb owning a type of gun

I think the Whole "we bear arms what happens if!" is a bunch of scare tactics from gun lovers, passed on from father to son, as some type of attempt to scare youngins to their ideals

If someone was actling like a prick and breaking into your house, what is wrong with the general Bat to the head? Oh right he has access to guns due to a very laxed gun laws..?

 

[Mufasa]

I think the Whole "we bear arms what happens if!" is a bunch of scare tactics from gun lovers, passed on from father to son, as some type of attempt to scare youngins to their ideals

Mostly. The idea that we would collapse into a state of tyranny if citizens were denied access to their handguns is silly rightwing rhetoric. If this were really true, then most places with strict gun control would be absent of all of their basic freedoms. It's also naive to believe that citizens with handguns would ever be able to defeat a strong national government, if their national government possessed a powerful modern military.

What handguns are good for is protecting your home against petty criminals.

If anything has been evidenced by the middle east, it's that in close combat, the US Army can be slowed down. Hunting rifles are high enough power to kill in one shot. From close range, the average pistol can deliver a death shot.

You are comparing foreign occupation to an internal rebellion. If a rebellion happened here that directly challenged the stability of our federal government, the federal government would act with a lot more gusto. Right now, the stakes aren't nearly as high, and we are voluntarily using a lot of restraint because of the political advantages of mercilessly suppressing resistance doesn't match up with both the international and local political consequences.

If they want to roll tanks down the street, they would have to understand that there would be 300,000,000 people with half billion guns and trillions of rounds firing at them.

No there wouldn't be. Just like in every internal conflict ever, there would be large portions of the country that would side with the national government or stay neutral. Those who did resist would would be outgunned and up against professional military strategists.